DP2

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP2

Should Engineer A first directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal from the structural footing assignment before reporting concerns to the contractor, or should Engineer A report concerns directly to the contractor given the structural safety risk without first confronting Engineer B?

Engineer A has investigated Engineer B's credentials and found that Engineer B's degree is in chemical engineering with no apparent subsequent training in foundation design. Engineer A must decide how to sequence his response: whether to first directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal before escalating to the contractor, or to report concerns directly to the contractor without prior collegial confrontation. The tension is between the peer confrontation sequencing norm and the public welfare paramount principle given the structural safety stakes.

Directly confront Engineer B with the credential findings, recommend that Engineer B withdraw from the structural footing assignment, and escalate to the contractor only if Engineer B refuses — honoring the collegial-first sequencing norm while preserving the escalation pathway.

Bypass direct confrontation with Engineer B and report competence concerns immediately to the contractor, on the basis that the structural safety stakes are too high to risk delay and that the contractor, as the retaining party, is the appropriate decision-maker.

Defer both direct confrontation and contractor reporting pending further investigation to establish whether Engineer B has any undisclosed structural training or experience, applying incomplete situational knowledge restraint to avoid acting on potentially unverified assumptions.

Engineer A